begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Hadron Quark ] on Friday 04 August 2006 09:23 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
<snip>
> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/08/hijacking_a_macbook_in_60_seco_1.html
>>>
>>> I think that some subsequent articles argued the vulnerability could
>>> potentially expose all platforms. This also reminds me of:
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/02/intel_wireless_vulns/
>>
>> And should go a long way to stop people thinking that all *IX
>> deriviatives are somehow attack proof.
>
> The level of damage should differ nonetheless. Windows exposes much of its
> underlying function because it's pseudo-multi-users. The notion of roles,
> capabilities and privileges is built into *IX.
Nobody has ever claimed that Unix is 100% secure, it's just about
100,000 times less likely to get a virus than Windows. Obviously,
being 5 orders of magnitude /more secure/ than Microsoft Windows is one
reason why I choose to run linux, but that doesn't mean it's perfect,
however, it does keep improving all the time, as fixes are produced on
a continuous basis, far more often than for Microsoft Windows, which is
fixed at best monthly, as far as I know.
Wireless lan has been a security joke from its initial inception, and
appears more vulnerable all the time.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Isn't air travel wonderful? Breakfast in London, dinner in New York,
luggage in Brazil.
|
|
